No. 13-0257
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on May 20, 2013. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on January 17, 2014. It then denied rehearing on March 21, 2014 File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
January 17, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 6 other cases.
| Appellate District: | 1st Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 01-12-00584-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Michael C. Massengale |
| Trial Court: | 314th District Court |
| County: | Harris |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable John Franklin Phillips |
| Trial Docket: | 2011-03002 J |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-03-28 | Case Stored | ||
| 2014-03-21 | Corrected judgment issued | Issued | |
| 2014-03-21 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2014-03-21 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Denied | |
| This case was waiting for a decision about a pending motion for rehearing between January 29, 2014 and March 21, 2014. | |||
| 2014-01-29 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2014-01-29 | Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2014-01-17 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; remanded to Court of Appeals | |
| 2014-01-17 | Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1 | ||
| 2014-01-17 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2014-01-17 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 | |
| This case was pending on merits briefs between July 11, 2013 and January 17, 2014. | |||
| 2013-07-11 | Motion for leave to file brief disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-07-09 | Supplemental Brief filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-07-09 | Motion for leave to file brief | ||
| 2013-07-09 | Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs | ||
| 2013-07-08 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-06-18 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-06-18 | MET to file reply disposed of | Filing granted | |
| 2013-06-14 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-06-04 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-05-21 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2013-05-20 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2013-05-20 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-05-07 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-04-22 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-04-08 | Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D., A. |
|
Respondent | ||||
| E., V. |
|
Other Interested Party | ||||
| Attorney ad Litem |
|
Other Interested Party | ||||
| Texas Department of Family & Protective Services |
|
Petitioner |
The facts here, as in most parental-termination cases, are unfortunate. The mother’s age is not listed in the opinion, but her name (like the child’s) is also rendered as initials, suggesting that she, too, might be a minor.
The trial court heard evidence of the mother’s “status as a prostitute” and some previous relationships involving domestic violence. The court of appeals held, however, that the broader record did not support removal for “abuse or neglect” because it did not support an inference that the mother (whose rights were being terminated) had been the cause. It reasoned that “[e]vidence relating to past abuse or neglect of children other than the removed child is not relevant [under the statute].”
Applying its recent decision in IN THE INTEREST OF E.C.R., A CHILD, No. 12-0744, the Texas Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. The Court quoted its language from In re E.C.R. stating that the concept of abuse under the statute is broader and “necessarily includes the risks or threats of the environment in which the child is placed.”
